Will Buxton once said that he wish he could tell what happened during 2007 but can't. I have heard similar things from other F1-related people. Today, for the first time, someone actually involved in the 2007 saga said the same thing - Lewis Hamilton (during a Sky interview). For the first time I am convinced there's a lot left to be told and not just some journo trying to act important.

He was asked if he still gets upset about China 2007. He said he only looks forward, then suddenly said he wished he could tell what really happened in 2007, but can't. Martin Brundle said it's been 10 years, Lewis still said no.

It was mostly the way Lewis said it, it seemed he had a lot to say, but can't. I don't necessarily think it is related to China 2007 though.

He was asked if he still gets upset about China 2007. He said he only looks forward, then suddenly said he wished he could tell what really happened in 2007, but can't. Martin Brundle said it's been 10 years, Lewis still said no.

It was mostly the way Lewis said it, it seemed he had a lot to say, but can't. I don't necessarily think it is related to China 2007 though.

All sort of shenanigans going on behind the scenes in 2007, between the Mclaren drivers which I bet was very political behind the scenes and hopefully it will come out later on. As well as the spygate saga and of course the sabotage of Ferrari's car with white powder at the Monaco GP. All to be capped of with Stepneys suicide a 7 years later. Its like a film plot.

He was asked if he still gets upset about China 2007. He said he only looks forward, then suddenly said he wished he could tell what really happened in 2007, but can't. Martin Brundle said it's been 10 years, Lewis still said no.

It was mostly the way Lewis said it, it seemed he had a lot to say, but can't. I don't necessarily think it is related to China 2007 though.

To me it just sounded like he has his thoughts on that year and his obviously saving it for a book which I will be buying.

Without question. Schumacher would have won both (assuming he didn't get injured in a crash or something), especially 2007 considering Kimi, Alonso, and Lewis would have been in new environments and they would all have to adjust to the Bridgestones, even Schumi but of course he had so much experience on Bridgestones that his adjustments most likely would have been very minor. Plus, Ferrari had the best car both in 2007 and IMO by a larger margin in 2008 (more than Schumacher ever needed), and in 2008, TC was banned, which would have played to one of Schumi's biggest strengths: throttle control (which only made his support for the return of driver aids prior to 2001 even more odd to me LOL Though even Montoya was for their return and his car control is just as incredible. I think they argued that driver aids would make the cars faster, which is ultimately what they wanted as drivers, but still I was in shock! ).

That said, I'm not terribly disappointed at how things turned out in those years. I was ecstatic for Kimi in 2007 and happy for Lewis in 2008, not to mention the title fights were incredibly exciting!

_________________"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."Jean-Pierre Sarti

He was asked if he still gets upset about China 2007. He said he only looks forward

That makes sense. Had he looked backward, he would have seen the state of his tyres and won the championship.

Did you think that you was being funny with that comment?

He knew exactly the state of his rear tyres and repeatedly asked to change his tyres but McLaren left him out because apparently they were racing Alonso and not Kimi for some strange reason who was actually leading the race.

McLaren should have been thrown out of both championships, but that would have decimated TV viewing figures for the rest of the season and perhaps beyond. Instead the drivers' points were left alone and the WDC was left to reach its own conclusion to maintain the viewing audience's interest. Except for either driver to take the championship with a team that had been found guilty not only of cheating, but of breaking the law to gain an advantage, would have been a colossal own goal for F1's reputation. So privately the championship battle was all a pretence and in reality both McLaren drivers were instructed to throw the championship. Alonso obliged with a crash in Japan, but with Hamilton's 17 point lead with two races remaining they had to conjure up a bizarre strategy mishap in China and a mysterious loss of drive in Brazil that dropped him to the back of the field before miraculously fixing itself and not resurfacing for the remainder of the race. The China incident was strange: strange for a driver (even an inexperienced one) to stay out on ruined tyres, strange for a team so experienced to allow/instruct him to do so, and it's even a little strange for the driver to lose control at low speed in the pitlane entrance having made it round the rest of the circuit in one piece. However it's what happened in Brazil that really never quite sat right with me; I don't think it's ever really been explained.

In my opinion. Many will call it a ridiculous opinion. But people told me that when I said Piquet crashed on purpose.

McLaren should have been thrown out of both championships, but that would have decimated TV viewing figures for the rest of the season and perhaps beyond. Instead the drivers' points were left alone and the WDC was left to reach its own conclusion to maintain the viewing audience's interest. Except for either driver to take the championship with a team that had been found guilty not only of cheating, but of breaking the law to gain an advantage, would have been a colossal own goal for F1's reputation. So privately the championship battle was all a pretence and in reality both McLaren drivers were instructed to throw the championship. Alonso obliged with a crash in Japan, but with Hamilton's 17 point lead with two races remaining they had to conjure up a bizarre strategy mishap in China and a mysterious loss of drive in Brazil that dropped him to the back of the field before miraculously fixing itself and not resurfacing for the remainder of the race. The China incident was strange: strange for a driver (even an inexperienced one) to stay out on ruined tyres, strange for a team so experienced to allow/instruct him to do so, and it's even a little strange for the driver to lose control at low speed in the pitlane entrance having made it round the rest of the circuit in one piece. However it's what happened in Brazil that really never quite sat right with me; I don't think it's ever really been explained.

In my opinion. Many will call it a ridiculous opinion. But people told me that when I said Piquet crashed on purpose.

There's nothing strange about McLaren being incompetent, the track was dry but the pitlane entrance was still wet and Hamilton had no rubber left on his rear tyres.

He was asked if he still gets upset about China 2007. He said he only looks forward, then suddenly said he wished he could tell what really happened in 2007, but can't. Martin Brundle said it's been 10 years, Lewis still said no.

It was mostly the way Lewis said it, it seemed he had a lot to say, but can't. I don't necessarily think it is related to China 2007 though.

All sort of shenanigans going on behind the scenes in 2007, between the Mclaren drivers which I bet was very political behind the scenes and hopefully it will come out later on. As well as the spygate saga and of course the sabotage of Ferrari's car with white powder at the Monaco GP. All to be capped of with Stepneys suicide a 7 years later. Its like a film plot.

I wonder if he's alluding to McLaren perhaps wanting to throw the race because they had been caught with Ferrari's design plans? If they had won the championship then perhaps the fallout would be even bigger and go on for longer. Maybe private lawsuits? McLaren were lucky not to be banned. Alternatively, with no championship & $100 million fine, it becomes the past & they are still in business (winning the championship in 2008). A reasonable conspiracy theory?

McLaren should have been thrown out of both championships, but that would have decimated TV viewing figures for the rest of the season and perhaps beyond. Instead the drivers' points were left alone and the WDC was left to reach its own conclusion to maintain the viewing audience's interest. Except for either driver to take the championship with a team that had been found guilty not only of cheating, but of breaking the law to gain an advantage, would have been a colossal own goal for F1's reputation. So privately the championship battle was all a pretence and in reality both McLaren drivers were instructed to throw the championship. Alonso obliged with a crash in Japan, but with Hamilton's 17 point lead with two races remaining they had to conjure up a bizarre strategy mishap in China and a mysterious loss of drive in Brazil that dropped him to the back of the field before miraculously fixing itself and not resurfacing for the remainder of the race. The China incident was strange: strange for a driver (even an inexperienced one) to stay out on ruined tyres, strange for a team so experienced to allow/instruct him to do so, and it's even a little strange for the driver to lose control at low speed in the pitlane entrance having made it round the rest of the circuit in one piece. However it's what happened in Brazil that really never quite sat right with me; I don't think it's ever really been explained.

In my opinion. Many will call it a ridiculous opinion. But people told me that when I said Piquet crashed on purpose.

There's nothing strange about McLaren being incompetent, the track was dry but the pitlane entrance was still wet and Hamilton had no rubber left on his rear tyres.

I wrote a separate comment before reading this. I tend to agree with you. I don't think it's absurd at all. If McLaren had won the championship after Spygate, would Ferrari have let it go with just a fine, or would they have taken it to a real court? I think it might have been the only way to maintain a championship for the viewers while making the issue go away. If that was the case, exactly who would have been in on that plan is anyone's guess (although it would seem that Hamilton knows more than we do).

Macca left out Kimi at the nurburgring with the carcas coming off the wheel - they botched it in China and Hamilton didn't veto it on time.

The Nurburgring incident was a very different situation though. There were only a handful of laps left (the tyre failed on the very last lap) and pitting would have cost them the win when the championship was far from its conclusion. At the time I thought McLaren made the right call in leaving him out and taking the gamble, and it so nearly paid off.

In China they were about halfway through the race and Hamilton still needed to pit again for fuel at some point, no matter what the tyre situation was. Hamilton was leading and all they needed was 6th place to take the title. There was literally nothing to be gained from leaving him out so long and I struggle to believe that any highly paid F1 strategist could be that incompetent.

McLaren should have been thrown out of both championships, but that would have decimated TV viewing figures for the rest of the season and perhaps beyond. Instead the drivers' points were left alone and the WDC was left to reach its own conclusion to maintain the viewing audience's interest. Except for either driver to take the championship with a team that had been found guilty not only of cheating, but of breaking the law to gain an advantage, would have been a colossal own goal for F1's reputation. So privately the championship battle was all a pretence and in reality both McLaren drivers were instructed to throw the championship. Alonso obliged with a crash in Japan, but with Hamilton's 17 point lead with two races remaining they had to conjure up a bizarre strategy mishap in China and a mysterious loss of drive in Brazil that dropped him to the back of the field before miraculously fixing itself and not resurfacing for the remainder of the race. The China incident was strange: strange for a driver (even an inexperienced one) to stay out on ruined tyres, strange for a team so experienced to allow/instruct him to do so, and it's even a little strange for the driver to lose control at low speed in the pitlane entrance having made it round the rest of the circuit in one piece. However it's what happened in Brazil that really never quite sat right with me; I don't think it's ever really been explained.

In my opinion. Many will call it a ridiculous opinion. But people told me that when I said Piquet crashed on purpose.

There's nothing strange about McLaren being incompetent, the track was dry but the pitlane entrance was still wet and Hamilton had no rubber left on his rear tyres.

I wrote a separate comment before reading this. I tend to agree with you. I don't think it's absurd at all. If McLaren had won the championship after Spygate, would Ferrari have let it go with just a fine, or would they have taken it to a real court? I think it might have been the only way to maintain a championship for the viewers while making the issue go away. If that was the case, exactly who would have been in on that plan is anyone's guess (although it would seem that Hamilton knows more than we do).

That would mean Hamilton himself throwing away the title deliberately, seriously?

Macca left out Kimi at the nurburgring with the carcas coming off the wheel - they botched it in China and Hamilton didn't veto it on time.

The Nurburgring incident was a very different situation though. There were only a handful of laps left (the tyre failed on the very last lap) and pitting would have cost them the win when the championship was far from its conclusion. At the time I thought McLaren made the right call in leaving him out and taking the gamble, and it so nearly paid off.

In China they were about halfway through the race and Hamilton still needed to pit again for fuel at some point, no matter what the tyre situation was. Hamilton was leading and all they needed was 6th place to take the title. There was literally nothing to be gained from leaving him out so long and I struggle to believe that any highly paid F1 strategist could be that incompetent.

Macca left out Kimi at the nurburgring with the carcas coming off the wheel - they botched it in China and Hamilton didn't veto it on time.

The Nurburgring incident was a very different situation though. There were only a handful of laps left (the tyre failed on the very last lap) and pitting would have cost them the win when the championship was far from its conclusion. At the time I thought McLaren made the right call in leaving him out and taking the gamble, and it so nearly paid off.

In China they were about halfway through the race and Hamilton still needed to pit again for fuel at some point, no matter what the tyre situation was. Hamilton was leading and all they needed was 6th place to take the title. There was literally nothing to be gained from leaving him out so long and I struggle to believe that any highly paid F1 strategist could be that incompetent.

I repeat we are talking about McLaren here.

Forgive my ignorance but I can't recall many specific strategic blunders from McLaren over the years. There've been a few 'operational' errors - Hakkinen's loose wheel in Silverstone, failing to fill Hamilton's fuel tank in qualifying in Spain and the odd botched pitstop come to mind - but in terms of pitstop strategy they've usually been pretty sound. As I said above, leaving Raikkonen out at the Nurburgring was only a poor decision in hindsight.

Macca left out Kimi at the nurburgring with the carcas coming off the wheel - they botched it in China and Hamilton didn't veto it on time.

The Nurburgring incident was a very different situation though. There were only a handful of laps left (the tyre failed on the very last lap) and pitting would have cost them the win when the championship was far from its conclusion. At the time I thought McLaren made the right call in leaving him out and taking the gamble, and it so nearly paid off.

In China they were about halfway through the race and Hamilton still needed to pit again for fuel at some point, no matter what the tyre situation was. Hamilton was leading and all they needed was 6th place to take the title. There was literally nothing to be gained from leaving him out so long and I struggle to believe that any highly paid F1 strategist could be that incompetent.

I repeat we are talking about McLaren here.

Forgive my ignorance but I can't recall many specific strategic blunders from McLaren over the years. There've been a few 'operational' errors - Hakkinen's loose wheel in Silverstone, failing to fill Hamilton's fuel tank in qualifying in Spain and the odd botched pitstop come to mind - but in terms of pitstop strategy they've usually been pretty sound. As I said above, leaving Raikkonen out at the Nurburgring was only a poor decision in hindsight.

What? No. It was obvious how bad it was, there were even replays with a lot of vibration in there. You don't need hindsight to know that thing was close to breaking, whatcha talking about? Raikkonen said after the crash that we was only interested in winning and wanted to risk a DNF rather than finish second which is why he didn't stop. He knew it was bad, but risked it.

Macca left out Kimi at the nurburgring with the carcas coming off the wheel - they botched it in China and Hamilton didn't veto it on time.

The Nurburgring incident was a very different situation though. There were only a handful of laps left (the tyre failed on the very last lap) and pitting would have cost them the win when the championship was far from its conclusion. At the time I thought McLaren made the right call in leaving him out and taking the gamble, and it so nearly paid off.

In China they were about halfway through the race and Hamilton still needed to pit again for fuel at some point, no matter what the tyre situation was. Hamilton was leading and all they needed was 6th place to take the title. There was literally nothing to be gained from leaving him out so long and I struggle to believe that any highly paid F1 strategist could be that incompetent.

I repeat we are talking about McLaren here.

Forgive my ignorance but I can't recall many specific strategic blunders from McLaren over the years. There've been a few 'operational' errors - Hakkinen's loose wheel in Silverstone, failing to fill Hamilton's fuel tank in qualifying in Spain and the odd botched pitstop come to mind - but in terms of pitstop strategy they've usually been pretty sound. As I said above, leaving Raikkonen out at the Nurburgring was only a poor decision in hindsight.

My reference point would be the last 10 years were there have been countless blunders by McLaren, if not for his 5 year contract I believe Hamilton would have left before 2012 provided there was a suitable opening.

Macca left out Kimi at the nurburgring with the carcas coming off the wheel - they botched it in China and Hamilton didn't veto it on time.

The Nurburgring incident was a very different situation though. There were only a handful of laps left (the tyre failed on the very last lap) and pitting would have cost them the win when the championship was far from its conclusion. At the time I thought McLaren made the right call in leaving him out and taking the gamble, and it so nearly paid off.

In China they were about halfway through the race and Hamilton still needed to pit again for fuel at some point, no matter what the tyre situation was. Hamilton was leading and all they needed was 6th place to take the title. There was literally nothing to be gained from leaving him out so long and I struggle to believe that any highly paid F1 strategist could be that incompetent.

I repeat we are talking about McLaren here.

Forgive my ignorance but I can't recall many specific strategic blunders from McLaren over the years. There've been a few 'operational' errors - Hakkinen's loose wheel in Silverstone, failing to fill Hamilton's fuel tank in qualifying in Spain and the odd botched pitstop come to mind - but in terms of pitstop strategy they've usually been pretty sound. As I said above, leaving Raikkonen out at the Nurburgring was only a poor decision in hindsight.

My reference point would be the last 10 years were there have been countless blunders by McLaren, if not for his 5 year contract I believe Hamilton would have left before 2012 provided there was a suitable opening.

Basically strategy has long been Mclaren's weakness. They frequently overthought things and often shot themselves in the foot. One example is in 2008, when Hamilton needed just 5th place in Brazil to win the race, Mclaren actually went for a lower downforce setting to "protect him on the straight". This was a completely foolish decision as it was a wet race and Hamilton struggled with an awful setup throughout the entirety of it.

When Whitmarsh took over in 2009, their strategy went from bad to worse. I'll really have to dig but there was a forum member who once ran the numbers and concluded that between 2009-2012, McLaren lost out on at least 7-8 race wins due to strategic errors.

mysterious loss of drive in Brazil that dropped him to the back of the field before miraculously fixing itself and not resurfacing for the remainder of the race. what happened in Brazil that really never quite sat right with me; I don't think it's ever really been explained.

They practised that damn trick all way back in 1999 with Hakkinen at the same circuit, in the same place:

Why these myths are spreaded? What's next? Mysterious fire in Williams garage, surely to cover up the fraud, after their shocking and completely unexpected win at Barcelona in 2012, weekend when team celebrated Frank's 70th birthday? But, oh, Frank Williams was actually born in April and team only celebrated it in Spain, because it was the first European round of the season:

The Nurburgring incident was a very different situation though. There were only a handful of laps left (the tyre failed on the very last lap) and pitting would have cost them the win when the championship was far from its conclusion. At the time I thought McLaren made the right call in leaving him out and taking the gamble, and it so nearly paid off.

In China they were about halfway through the race and Hamilton still needed to pit again for fuel at some point, no matter what the tyre situation was. Hamilton was leading and all they needed was 6th place to take the title. There was literally nothing to be gained from leaving him out so long and I struggle to believe that any highly paid F1 strategist could be that incompetent.

I repeat we are talking about McLaren here.

Forgive my ignorance but I can't recall many specific strategic blunders from McLaren over the years. There've been a few 'operational' errors - Hakkinen's loose wheel in Silverstone, failing to fill Hamilton's fuel tank in qualifying in Spain and the odd botched pitstop come to mind - but in terms of pitstop strategy they've usually been pretty sound. As I said above, leaving Raikkonen out at the Nurburgring was only a poor decision in hindsight.

My reference point would be the last 10 years were there have been countless blunders by McLaren, if not for his 5 year contract I believe Hamilton would have left before 2012 provided there was a suitable opening.

Basically strategy has long been Mclaren's weakness. They frequently overthought things and often shot themselves in the foot. One example is in 2008, when Hamilton needed just 5th place in Brazil to win the race, Mclaren actually went for a lower downforce setting to "protect him on the straight". This was a completely foolish decision as it was a wet race and Hamilton struggled with an awful setup throughout the entirety of it.

When Whitmarsh took over in 2009, their strategy went from bad to worse. I'll really have to dig but there was a forum member who once ran the numbers and concluded that between 2009-2012, McLaren lost out on at least 7-8 race wins due to strategic errors.

Although Hamilton doesn't have a bad word to say against Whitmarsh I daresay he was basically the reason why Hamilton left McLaren, bad management.

Basically strategy has long been Mclaren's weakness. They frequently overthought things and often shot themselves in the foot.

Wish I could remember, but there was a famous incident around 2010 when they kept the cars out when it started raining but their Woking base said it wasn't gonna rain. Everyone joked they could've just extended their arms to find out it was raining or not.

They did that on multiple times around that time when they would listen to their team in Woking rather than just use their brains and see what was going on around them. Made a few bad decisions.

I hope someone remembers a bit more of it and can pinpoint the exact races.

He was asked if he still gets upset about China 2007. He said he only looks forward

That makes sense. Had he looked backward, he would have seen the state of his tyres and won the championship.

Did you think that you was being funny with that comment?

He knew exactly the state of his rear tyres and repeatedly asked to change his tyres but McLaren left him out because apparently they were racing Alonso and not Kimi for some strange reason who was actually leading the race.

Indeed I did a bit, and Mcdo got the joke! Although, I also stand by the comment if taken seriously. I will gladly admit I don't know what young racers are taught about aiming their rearview mirrors, nor what they are told about going against bad advice from the pitwall. But if, as you say, he really knew the state of his rear tyres, it's not his team that lost him the title.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

OK that claim was a little more outlandish and it was most likely a genuine error. It conveniently put Alonso out of the title race though.

Armchair Expert wrote:

j man wrote:

mysterious loss of drive in Brazil that dropped him to the back of the field before miraculously fixing itself and not resurfacing for the remainder of the race. what happened in Brazil that really never quite sat right with me; I don't think it's ever really been explained.

They practised that damn trick all way back in 1999 with Hakkinen at the same circuit, in the same place:

What's your point? That has nothing to do with the argument I was making. If I'd known Sheldon Cooper was going to show up I'd have thought about it a little more and written 'suspension failure caused by excessive vibration due to a tyre he'd flat-spotted a few laps previously'. Is that better?

Armchair Expert wrote:

Why these myths are spreaded? What's next? Mysterious fire in Williams garage, surely to cover up the fraud, after their shocking and completely unexpected win at Barcelona in 2012, weekend when team celebrated Frank's 70th birthday? But, oh, Frank Williams was actually born in April and team only celebrated it in Spain, because it was the first European round of the season:

Macca left out Kimi at the nurburgring with the carcas coming off the wheel - they botched it in China and Hamilton didn't veto it on time.

The Nurburgring incident was a very different situation though. There were only a handful of laps left (the tyre failed on the very last lap) and pitting would have cost them the win when the championship was far from its conclusion. At the time I thought McLaren made the right call in leaving him out and taking the gamble, and it so nearly paid off.

In China they were about halfway through the race and Hamilton still needed to pit again for fuel at some point, no matter what the tyre situation was. Hamilton was leading and all they needed was 6th place to take the title. There was literally nothing to be gained from leaving him out so long and I struggle to believe that any highly paid F1 strategist could be that incompetent.

I repeat we are talking about McLaren here.

Forgive my ignorance but I can't recall many specific strategic blunders from McLaren over the years. There've been a few 'operational' errors - Hakkinen's loose wheel in Silverstone, failing to fill Hamilton's fuel tank in qualifying in Spain and the odd botched pitstop come to mind - but in terms of pitstop strategy they've usually been pretty sound. As I said above, leaving Raikkonen out at the Nurburgring was only a poor decision in hindsight.

What? No. It was obvious how bad it was, there were even replays with a lot of vibration in there. You don't need hindsight to know that thing was close to breaking, whatcha talking about? Raikkonen said after the crash that we was only interested in winning and wanted to risk a DNF rather than finish second which is why he didn't stop. He knew it was bad, but risked it.

Yes it was obvious how bad it was but there was only one lap remaining. I guess we all had our own opinions at the time of whether he should pit or not but mine was that he should take the gamble and stay out, and hope that the car held out for one more lap.

McLaren should have been thrown out of both championships, but that would have decimated TV viewing figures for the rest of the season and perhaps beyond. Instead the drivers' points were left alone and the WDC was left to reach its own conclusion to maintain the viewing audience's interest. Except for either driver to take the championship with a team that had been found guilty not only of cheating, but of breaking the law to gain an advantage, would have been a colossal own goal for F1's reputation. So privately the championship battle was all a pretence and in reality both McLaren drivers were instructed to throw the championship. Alonso obliged with a crash in Japan, but with Hamilton's 17 point lead with two races remaining they had to conjure up a bizarre strategy mishap in China and a mysterious loss of drive in Brazil that dropped him to the back of the field before miraculously fixing itself and not resurfacing for the remainder of the race. The China incident was strange: strange for a driver (even an inexperienced one) to stay out on ruined tyres, strange for a team so experienced to allow/instruct him to do so, and it's even a little strange for the driver to lose control at low speed in the pitlane entrance having made it round the rest of the circuit in one piece. However it's what happened in Brazil that really never quite sat right with me; I don't think it's ever really been explained.

In my opinion. Many will call it a ridiculous opinion. But people told me that when I said Piquet crashed on purpose.

There's nothing strange about McLaren being incompetent, the track was dry but the pitlane entrance was still wet and Hamilton had no rubber left on his rear tyres.

I wrote a separate comment before reading this. I tend to agree with you. I don't think it's absurd at all. If McLaren had won the championship after Spygate, would Ferrari have let it go with just a fine, or would they have taken it to a real court? I think it might have been the only way to maintain a championship for the viewers while making the issue go away. If that was the case, exactly who would have been in on that plan is anyone's guess (although it would seem that Hamilton knows more than we do).

That would mean Hamilton himself throwing away the title deliberately, seriously?

Depends what was at stake if he didn't.

And regardless of the circumstances, I'm glad Hamilton didn't win the title that year. It would have been tainted and would have cast a shadow over his whole career, rather like Schumacher and 1994.

McLaren should have been thrown out of both championships, but that would have decimated TV viewing figures for the rest of the season and perhaps beyond. Instead the drivers' points were left alone and the WDC was left to reach its own conclusion to maintain the viewing audience's interest. Except for either driver to take the championship with a team that had been found guilty not only of cheating, but of breaking the law to gain an advantage, would have been a colossal own goal for F1's reputation. So privately the championship battle was all a pretence and in reality both McLaren drivers were instructed to throw the championship. Alonso obliged with a crash in Japan, but with Hamilton's 17 point lead with two races remaining they had to conjure up a bizarre strategy mishap in China and a mysterious loss of drive in Brazil that dropped him to the back of the field before miraculously fixing itself and not resurfacing for the remainder of the race. The China incident was strange: strange for a driver (even an inexperienced one) to stay out on ruined tyres, strange for a team so experienced to allow/instruct him to do so, and it's even a little strange for the driver to lose control at low speed in the pitlane entrance having made it round the rest of the circuit in one piece. However it's what happened in Brazil that really never quite sat right with me; I don't think it's ever really been explained.

In my opinion. Many will call it a ridiculous opinion. But people told me that when I said Piquet crashed on purpose.

There's nothing strange about McLaren being incompetent, the track was dry but the pitlane entrance was still wet and Hamilton had no rubber left on his rear tyres.

I wrote a separate comment before reading this. I tend to agree with you. I don't think it's absurd at all. If McLaren had won the championship after Spygate, would Ferrari have let it go with just a fine, or would they have taken it to a real court? I think it might have been the only way to maintain a championship for the viewers while making the issue go away. If that was the case, exactly who would have been in on that plan is anyone's guess (although it would seem that Hamilton knows more than we do).

That would mean Hamilton himself throwing away the title deliberately, seriously?

Depends what was at stake if he didn't.

And regardless of the circumstances, I'm glad Hamilton didn't win the title that year. It would have been tainted and would have cast a shadow over his whole career, rather like Schumacher and 1994.

Is Schumacher really seen as a tainted Champion, he seems to get full credit for all his titles besides what he himself did in 1994, whereas in 2007 Hamilton was just a passenger and let's face it the design of the McLaren was nothing like that of the Ferrari.

What's your point? That has nothing to do with the argument I was making. If I'd known Sheldon Cooper was going to show up I'd have thought about it a little more and written 'suspension failure caused by excessive vibration due to a tyre he'd flat-spotted a few laps previously'. Is that better?

I know and yes, that's better, even if it wasn't relevant to the point of discussion.

And by the way, it wasn't few laps earlier, but almost half a race distance. Michelin and Bridgestone produced pretty robust tyres, so no wonder it was the suspension giving up. Meanwhile with Pirelli we got to see this, only few hundred meters further after lock up:

Forgive my ignorance but I can't recall many specific strategic blunders from McLaren over the years. There've been a few 'operational' errors - Hakkinen's loose wheel in Silverstone, failing to fill Hamilton's fuel tank in qualifying in Spain and the odd botched pitstop come to mind - but in terms of pitstop strategy they've usually been pretty sound. As I said above, leaving Raikkonen out at the Nurburgring was only a poor decision in hindsight.

What? No. It was obvious how bad it was, there were even replays with a lot of vibration in there. You don't need hindsight to know that thing was close to breaking, whatcha talking about? Raikkonen said after the crash that we was only interested in winning and wanted to risk a DNF rather than finish second which is why he didn't stop. He knew it was bad, but risked it.

Yes it was obvious how bad it was but there was only one lap remaining. I guess we all had our own opinions at the time of whether he should pit or not but mine was that he should take the gamble and stay out, and hope that the car held out for one more lap.

You're making no sense. You said it was in hindsight, now you're saying it was obvious how bad it was. Also, there was more than a lap remaining when he got a flatspot, do you even know what happened that day?

Forgive my ignorance but I can't recall many specific strategic blunders from McLaren over the years. There've been a few 'operational' errors - Hakkinen's loose wheel in Silverstone, failing to fill Hamilton's fuel tank in qualifying in Spain and the odd botched pitstop come to mind - but in terms of pitstop strategy they've usually been pretty sound. As I said above, leaving Raikkonen out at the Nurburgring was only a poor decision in hindsight.

What? No. It was obvious how bad it was, there were even replays with a lot of vibration in there. You don't need hindsight to know that thing was close to breaking, whatcha talking about? Raikkonen said after the crash that we was only interested in winning and wanted to risk a DNF rather than finish second which is why he didn't stop. He knew it was bad, but risked it.

Yes it was obvious how bad it was but there was only one lap remaining. I guess we all had our own opinions at the time of whether he should pit or not but mine was that he should take the gamble and stay out, and hope that the car held out for one more lap.

You're making no sense. You said it was in hindsight, now you're saying it was obvious how bad it was. Also, there was more than a lap remaining when he got a flatspot, do you even know what happened that day?

It wasn't obvious it was going to go before the it went. It was obvious it might. Nobody knew Mclaren had made a bad decision when Kimi went over the start/finish line to begin his final lap.

Forgive my ignorance but I can't recall many specific strategic blunders from McLaren over the years. There've been a few 'operational' errors - Hakkinen's loose wheel in Silverstone, failing to fill Hamilton's fuel tank in qualifying in Spain and the odd botched pitstop come to mind - but in terms of pitstop strategy they've usually been pretty sound. As I said above, leaving Raikkonen out at the Nurburgring was only a poor decision in hindsight.

What? No. It was obvious how bad it was, there were even replays with a lot of vibration in there. You don't need hindsight to know that thing was close to breaking, whatcha talking about? Raikkonen said after the crash that we was only interested in winning and wanted to risk a DNF rather than finish second which is why he didn't stop. He knew it was bad, but risked it.

Yes it was obvious how bad it was but there was only one lap remaining. I guess we all had our own opinions at the time of whether he should pit or not but mine was that he should take the gamble and stay out, and hope that the car held out for one more lap.

You're making no sense. You said it was in hindsight, now you're saying it was obvious how bad it was. Also, there was more than a lap remaining when he got a flatspot, do you even know what happened that day?

There's no need for such a condescending tone. Yes I recall it as well as can be expected for an event 12 years ago. The vibration looked to be severe enough to cause a suspension failure at some point, the only question was whether it would last until the end of the race. I, along with Raikkonen and McLaren, thought (hoped?) it would. You clearly thought it wouldn't. You were correct and it failed on the last lap.